JediDefender.com Forums
Community => Watto's Junk Yard => Topic started by: Famine on July 10, 2006, 11:53 PM
-
With movies like King Kong, Superman Returns, and Pirates of the Caribbian 2 out latley, it seems like more and more people are complaining about the running time of new pictures.
With the price of movie tickets quite high ($9.75 here), I myself find it much better to pay that price and get two and a half hours of entertainment, rather than have a short movie, at such a price.
What are your thoughs on the running times of these big new blockbuster films?
Kevin
-
As long as it doesn't feel like I am waiting for the movie to end, the length doesn't bother me. I actually hate when a movie seems to end too soon in order to fit into a "time frame" for ticket sales. RotS is an excellent example of this.
I think that both King Kong and PotC could have been edited to be a bit shorter. Supes flew by for me.
-
Running should dictate the time it takes to tell the story, whether it's 90 min. or 4 hours. There's lots of movies 90 min. movies that should have been longer, as well as 3 hour movies that should have been 90 min.
-
Agreed. It's the right length when it feels like the right length.
X3 could have used an extra half-hour.
Superman Returns could have trimmed a half-hour.
Priates DMC was just right.
You just know it when you see it. The LOTR trilogy was super-long, but I think even the extended DVDs are perfect because they tell the story well.